Hey people I'm making a report on tanks for my graduation, and I wondered.. if anyone knew the statisticly best tank for every single statistic and an average statistic overview (e.g): fuel per mile/km: firepower: effective range: speed: turning capability: turret turning capability: All-round best: ??? could any of you help me out I'm getting a headache of looking for all the needed data and I wondered if you guys could help me out.
Hey Razzy, welcome to the forum. The problem with your question is that there is no single answer as to which tank was the all-round best tank of WW2. If there was a simple answer to that question this forum would not need to exist in the first place. I can answer some of your best categories for you, though. Firepower: the German Tiger II. Its 88mm KwK43 L/71 was the most powerful anti-tank gun of the war and fired a decent HE shell as well. This superb firepower came at a price, though; the barrel of the gun was so long (over 6 meters) that it took special training for drivers to be able to handle a vehicle wielding it. Speed: the Russian BT-7, with a top speed of 72 km/h on road. During the war I reckon the Russian T34/85 gets the prize with a road speed of 55 km/h, though more reliable British tanks could attain comparable speeds on road. Turret Turning capability: as far as I know, the American M4A3 76(w) takes the prize here with a full rotation in 15 seconds. As to which tank is the all round best, it really matters what you would consider the most important factor. There are several contestants to the prize, some of which are strategical and others more tactical choices. Protection, firepower, mobility, but also ease of production and maintenance should be a factor.
I would sugges tthe T-34 or the T-34/85 since they were the most balanced of them all (personal opionion). Used by 39 countries until 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
I'd like to bicker about those stats for a moment, it says the T34/85 had 90mm armour thickness but that is only at the thickest part of the armour (at the mantlet). Most parts of the tank were protected by steel 45mm thick. I agree with you on this choice because the T34/85 is the most strategically powerful tank. On the other hand, the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" had comparable armament but thicker armour, wet storage and it was more reliable.
I can awnser this question. Well you see many sites indicate just the lasgest amount of armour in a certain section probably because they are lazy or they jsut want to make the tanklook better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I same as for tiger II when the amrour t the rear and sides was a significant number lower.
Because there is more to the efficiency of a gun than the diameter of the projectile it fires, depening on its role.
Like Panzerman said, other factors come into play, including the amount of propellant, the length of the barrel and the weight of the projectile. I will not claim to be anything near an expert in physics but I can tell you that a bigger gun will not automatically mean an increase in penetrative capability. Notable examples of this are the Tiger's 88mm L/56 which was less powerful AP-wise than the Panther's 75mm L/70, and the Jagdtiger's 128mm L/55 which was less powerful AP-wise than the Tiger II's 88mm L/71.
The germans did use blitzkrieg dind't they? Head on attack, so no use for rear or side defence, seeing they lined up to attack. The rear became important when they we're forced to start retreating, which they started to do when they started losing the war. At that moment the king Tiger was introduced but it wasn't that effective. Tell me if I'm wrong but I think I got a point here.
When the situation permitted them and their goals called for it, yes. No. Read up on Christians article on "Bewegungkrieg", it explains the principles and history quite well. http://panzerworld.net/blitzkrieg.html No, you don't really have a point. Tanks dont either drive forward and backward, and even in offense can be attacked from behind, maneuvred around, surrounded, and flanked. The point you place in the correlation between large scale doctrines (Bewegungskrieg) and armor layout is incorrect.
That's "Bewegungkrieg" according to the site but I'd say "Bewegungskrieg" is correct German. Anyway it means "mobile war" and I don't see why we couldn't just use this perfectly good English term. Armour layout of tanks isn't adapted to strategic purposes because, like Panzerman said, in the field these purposes are void and a tank may find itself in any imaginable situation regardless of its role in the campaign that is being fought.
Oops, that's a type on my part (which then got repeated a couple of times). As for what the terms cover: Blitzkrieg English word, covering a loosely defined concept of motorized warfare. Sometimes also called Meteorskrieg. Never used inside Germany. Bewegungskrieg German word, describing a centuries-old German theory of movement warfare, as used by Moltke and Clausewitz, et alibi.
This is helping me greatly ive gotten more information that I can use in the last 11 posts, then ive gathered in 1 month, but my time is running short, I will post my msn here so you can contact me if you have it (sinshz@hotmail.com), I need information before the 17th of Feb. Thnx in advance
Information on what? This is a far better medium to share information regarding tanks. Post it up here
This is a far better medium but it is slower then msn, Roel is already helping me out but any additional help is welcome, I almost done with gathering information, so I might need just a few more questions, I work at school alot but when I am at home I can think up questions faster, seeing I got my own stuff there.
